Re: [Vo]:'Super atoms'
In reply to Zachary Jones's message of Mon, 7 Jul 2008 19:04:01 -0700: Hi, [snip] Thought the list would be interested in this work on easily- produceable atom clusters: http://www.physorg.com/news134129791.html They claim the principle is old news, but I hadn't heard of the electron shell 'conjugation' they suggest in the article. This may explain something else - the whitegold story. Purported among other things to be superconducting at room temperature. Some of these atoms are going to get pretty heavy. Also the Russian results from http://www.proton21.com.ua/index_en.html might actually contain at least some superatom substances (especially those they claim are far heavier than Uranium). It would be unreasonable to get such atoms when matter is bombarded with high energy electrons, which could easily produce lots of individual atoms that then may recondense into clusters mimicking other elements. Furthermore, they used metals as targets, and this current work seems to imply that conductors are a prerequisite. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:'Super atoms'
In reply to Zachary Jones's message of Mon, 7 Jul 2008 19:04:01 -0700: Hi, [snip] Thought the list would be interested in this work on easily- produceable atom clusters: http://www.physorg.com/news134129791.html They claim the principle is old news, but I hadn't heard of the electron shell 'conjugation' they suggest in the article. This may explain something else - the whitegold story. Purported among other things to be superconducting at room temperature. Some of these atoms are going to get pretty heavy. Also the Russian results from http://www.proton21.com.ua/index_en.html might actually contain at least some superatom substances (especially those they claim are far heavier than Uranium). It would be unreasonable to get such atoms when matter is bombarded with high energy electrons, which could easily produce lots of individual atoms that then may recondense into clusters mimicking other elements. Furthermore, they used metals as targets, and this current work seems to imply that conductors are a prerequisite. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
RE: [Vo]:'Super atoms'
This may not be the exact same thing... There is serious work with electron Charged Clusters via Ken Shoulders whom started his investigation of them with physicist Hal Puthoff in Austin Texas. The implications for energy generation are so powerful he has been reluctant to go there without a thorough investigation of containment methodologies. Ken has come a long way with his work. Best bet is to search Google for Ken Shoulders charged clusters. Some of his papers are not online. If you take an interest I can email any by request. Not sure how large they are. Brian -Original Message- From: Robin van Spaandonk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 11:54 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:'Super atoms' In reply to Zachary Jones's message of Mon, 7 Jul 2008 19:04:01 -0700: Hi, [snip] Thought the list would be interested in this work on easily- produceable atom clusters: http://www.physorg.com/news134129791.html They claim the principle is old news, but I hadn't heard of the electron shell 'conjugation' they suggest in the article. This may explain something else - the whitegold story. Purported among other things to be superconducting at room temperature. Some of these atoms are going to get pretty heavy. Also the Russian results from http://www.proton21.com.ua/index_en.html might actually contain at least some superatom substances (especially those they claim are far heavier than Uranium). It would be unreasonable to get such atoms when matter is bombarded with high energy electrons, which could easily produce lots of individual atoms that then may recondense into clusters mimicking other elements. Furthermore, they used metals as targets, and this current work seems to imply that conductors are a prerequisite. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk
Re: [Vo]:'Super atoms'
You're quite right; it was actually rather silly of me to not mention the ORMUS work when I posted this. I had emailed Barry Carter just before the list to see where he would weigh in on this work, though have yet to hear back from him. I hadn't thought about the use of metal in terms of conduction; I had the sense it had more to do with the sheer number of electron energies. I like some of Jones' observations. Zak On Jul 7, 2008, at 11:57 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Zachary Jones's message of Mon, 7 Jul 2008 19:04:01 -0700: Hi, [snip] Thought the list would be interested in this work on easily- produceable atom clusters: http://www.physorg.com/news134129791.html They claim the principle is old news, but I hadn't heard of the electron shell 'conjugation' they suggest in the article. This may explain something else - the whitegold story. Purported among other things to be superconducting at room temperature. Some of these atoms are going to get pretty heavy. Also the Russian results from http://www.proton21.com.ua/index_en.html might actually contain at least some superatom substances (especially those they claim are far heavier than Uranium). It would not be unreasonable to get such atoms when matter is bombarded with high energy electrons, which could easily produce lots of individual atoms that then may condense into clusters mimicking other elements. Furthermore, they used metals as targets, and this current work seems to imply that conductors are a prerequisite. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Vo]:'Super atoms'
Thought the list would be interested in this work on easily- produceable atom clusters: http://www.physorg.com/news134129791.html They claim the principle is old news, but I hadn't heard of the electron shell 'conjugation' they suggest in the article. Zak
